W artykule zwracam uwagę na trudności jakie napotyka ktoś, kto chce wcielać w życie postulaty krytycyzmu dotyczące precyzji językowej. Zgodnie z tymi postulatami powinno się mówić jednoznacznie i precyzyjnie, a zatem unikać wyrażeń wieloznacznych, nieostrych i chwiejnych znaczeniowo. Jednakże postulaty te jest znacznie trudniej spełnić niż mogłoby się wydawać, bowiem istotne wątpliwości dotyczą samych zjawisk niejasności, nieostrości czy wieloznaczności. Wydaje się, że chcąc nauczyć innych unikania na przykład wypowiedzi wieloznacznych, powinniśmy dysponować adekwatną charakterystyką wieloznaczności i potrafić ją właściwie diagnozować. Tymczasem, sytuacja jest niesamowicie zagmatwana i w literaturze czy to filozoficznej, czy językoznawczej, nie ma jednej ustalonej definicji, czy choćby zgody co do tego, które wyrażenia są wieloznaczne. Nie ma także zgody co do tego, w jaki sposób charakteryzować polisemię i jak odróżniać ją np. od zależności kontekstowej. Wątpliwości budzi także charakterystyka nieostrości i właściwego klasyfikowania przypadków granicznych wyrażeń nieostrych. Nie ma natomiast wątpliwości, że większość wyrażeń języka naturalnego jest i nieostra, i zależna od kontekstu, i jednocześnie polisemiczna. Co więcej w wielu wypadkach te cechy wcale nie są defektami naszego języka, a wręcz usprawniają komunikację i umożliwiają nam szybkie przekazanie treści. Postulat unikania tego rodzaju wyrażeń jest po prostu nierealizowalny. Kierowanie się zasadami krytycyzmu pozwala jednak na łatwiejsze dostrzeżenie i unikanie wadliwości i uchybień wobec poprawności językowej w tych sytuacjach, gdy takie wadliwości utrudniają sprawną komunikację.
{"title":"Krytycyzm a polisemia, nieostrość i zależność kontekstowa","authors":"Joanna Odrowąż-Sypniewska","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.16","url":null,"abstract":"W artykule zwracam uwagę na trudności jakie napotyka ktoś, kto chce wcielać w życie postulaty krytycyzmu dotyczące precyzji językowej. Zgodnie z tymi postulatami powinno się mówić jednoznacznie i precyzyjnie, a zatem unikać wyrażeń wieloznacznych, nieostrych i chwiejnych znaczeniowo. Jednakże postulaty te jest znacznie trudniej spełnić niż mogłoby się wydawać, bowiem istotne wątpliwości dotyczą samych zjawisk niejasności, nieostrości czy wieloznaczności. Wydaje się, że chcąc nauczyć innych unikania na przykład wypowiedzi wieloznacznych, powinniśmy dysponować adekwatną charakterystyką wieloznaczności i potrafić ją właściwie diagnozować. Tymczasem, sytuacja jest niesamowicie zagmatwana i w literaturze czy to filozoficznej, czy językoznawczej, nie ma jednej ustalonej definicji, czy choćby zgody co do tego, które wyrażenia są wieloznaczne. Nie ma także zgody co do tego, w jaki sposób charakteryzować polisemię i jak odróżniać ją np. od zależności kontekstowej. Wątpliwości budzi także charakterystyka nieostrości i właściwego klasyfikowania przypadków granicznych wyrażeń nieostrych. Nie ma natomiast wątpliwości, że większość wyrażeń języka naturalnego jest i nieostra, i zależna od kontekstu, i jednocześnie polisemiczna. Co więcej w wielu wypadkach te cechy wcale nie są defektami naszego języka, a wręcz usprawniają komunikację i umożliwiają nam szybkie przekazanie treści. Postulat unikania tego rodzaju wyrażeń jest po prostu nierealizowalny. Kierowanie się zasadami krytycyzmu pozwala jednak na łatwiejsze dostrzeżenie i unikanie wadliwości i uchybień wobec poprawności językowej w tych sytuacjach, gdy takie wadliwości utrudniają sprawną komunikację.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44990397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper defends a compatibilist solution to the problem of the relationship between divine and human freedom. It is argued that the asymmetry of ability constituted by our ability to foreknowledge influence the future and our inability to control the past results from the asymmetry of openness between fixed past and open future interpreted in terms of the asymmetry of counterfactual dependence. Therefore, if the asymmetry of openness is not true of some types of facts, then we may be able to control them even if they are facts about the past. It turns out that widely shared accounts of the nature and source of God’s foreknowledge entail that the asymmetry of openness does not apply to God’s past beliefs about future contingencies. Thus, it is unjustified to claim that we are unable to now do anything such that, if we were to do it, God’s past beliefs would have been different.
{"title":"God’s Foreknowledge, Human Freedom, and the Asymmetry of Openness","authors":"A. Kuźniar","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.9","url":null,"abstract":"The paper defends a compatibilist solution to the problem of the relationship between divine and human freedom. It is argued that the asymmetry of ability constituted by our ability to foreknowledge influence the future and our inability to control the past results from the asymmetry of openness between fixed past and open future interpreted in terms of the asymmetry of counterfactual dependence. Therefore, if the asymmetry of openness is not true of some types of facts, then we may be able to control them even if they are facts about the past. It turns out that widely shared accounts of the nature and source of God’s foreknowledge entail that the asymmetry of openness does not apply to God’s past beliefs about future contingencies. Thus, it is unjustified to claim that we are unable to now do anything such that, if we were to do it, God’s past beliefs would have been different.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43820778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article contains a comparative analysis of the thought of Russian émigré philosopher Semen Frank and one of the most prominent representatives of process philosophy and theology Charles Hartshorne. Among the points of convergence, their integral vision of reality was pointed out. Frank’s and Hartshorne’s approaches to the question of cognition of God were considered, with special attention paid to their interpretation of the ontological proof. Hartshorne was familiar with Russian thought and even wrote reviews on Zenkovsky and Lossky’s classic books on the history of Russian philosophy, where he mentioned Frank more than once. One cannot speak of the two thinkers’ influence on each other, but rather of a common philosophical heritage going back to Plato.
{"title":"Philosophy of Religion through Two Lenses: Charles Hartshorne Reads Semen Frank","authors":"T. Obolevitch","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.7","url":null,"abstract":"The article contains a comparative analysis of the thought of Russian émigré philosopher Semen Frank and one of the most prominent representatives of process philosophy and theology Charles Hartshorne. Among the points of convergence, their integral vision of reality was pointed out. Frank’s and Hartshorne’s approaches to the question of cognition of God were considered, with special attention paid to their interpretation of the ontological proof. Hartshorne was familiar with Russian thought and even wrote reviews on Zenkovsky and Lossky’s classic books on the history of Russian philosophy, where he mentioned Frank more than once. One cannot speak of the two thinkers’ influence on each other, but rather of a common philosophical heritage going back to Plato.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43086572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Inspiracją do napisania niniejszego artykułu były rozdziały V–VII książki Ryszarda Kleszcza Logika, metafilozofia, wszechmoc. Siedem studiów filozoficznych (2021), dotyczące tej części metafizyki, którą w terminologii scholastycznejokreślano jako filozofię Boga, a obecnie umiejscawia się ją w obrębie teologii filozoficznej lub filozofii religii. Koncentruję się na trzech pytaniach: 1) jak odróżnić badania w zakresie filozofii religii od badań w naukach o religii; 2) czy typowe dla znacznej liczby filozofów religii ograniczanie badań do monoteizmu w największych religiach świata, a w kwestiach bardziej szczegółowych do chrześcijaństwa, można przekonująco uzasadnić bez ujawniania ich własnych przekonań w sprawie religii; 3) czy klasyczny teizm stanowi właściwą artykulację chrześcijańskiego znaczenia słowa „Bóg”. W odpowiedzi na pierwsze pytanie twierdzę, że filozofem religii jest ten, kto bezpośrednio lub pośrednio zajmuje pozytywne lub negatywne stanowisko w sprawie kognitywnego charakteru, a zwłaszcza prawdziwości (Kleszcz wolałby powiedzieć: „uzasadnienia”) wierzeń czy doświadczeń religijnych. Na drugie pytanie, inaczej niż Kleszcz, odpowiadam negatywnie: ujawnienie przez filozofa własnego stosunku do religii nie niweczy ideału obiektywności, natomiast promuje uczciwość wobec czytelników i eliminuje pewien rodzaj teoretycznej hipokryzji spotykany u zwolenników filozofii uprawianej w sposób rzekomo neutralny względem własnych przekonań. Moja odpowiedź na trzecie pytanie jest także negatywna. Potrzebna jest nam dzisiaj mniej zachowawcza, odważniejsza w swoich roszczeniach filozofia religii niż ta proponowana przez Ryszarda Kleszcza — taka mianowicie, która naśladuje sposób uprawiania filozofii przez dawnych mistrzów, np. przez św. Tomasza z Akwinu, polegający na poszukiwaniu filozoficznych podstaw dla chrześcijaństwa, a nie taka, która uznaje wyniki ich ustaleń, np. w kwestii natury Boga, za zasadniczo ostateczne, a korygowalne jedynie w drobnych szczegółach.
{"title":"Co powinno interesować filozofa w religii?","authors":"P. Gutowski","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.18","url":null,"abstract":"Inspiracją do napisania niniejszego artykułu były rozdziały V–VII książki Ryszarda Kleszcza Logika, metafilozofia, wszechmoc. Siedem studiów filozoficznych (2021), dotyczące tej części metafizyki, którą w terminologii scholastycznejokreślano jako filozofię Boga, a obecnie umiejscawia się ją w obrębie teologii filozoficznej lub filozofii religii. Koncentruję się na trzech pytaniach: 1) jak odróżnić badania w zakresie filozofii religii od badań w naukach o religii; 2) czy typowe dla znacznej liczby filozofów religii ograniczanie badań do monoteizmu w największych religiach świata, a w kwestiach bardziej szczegółowych do chrześcijaństwa, można przekonująco uzasadnić bez ujawniania ich własnych przekonań w sprawie religii; 3) czy klasyczny teizm stanowi właściwą artykulację chrześcijańskiego znaczenia słowa „Bóg”. W odpowiedzi na pierwsze pytanie twierdzę, że filozofem religii jest ten, kto bezpośrednio lub pośrednio zajmuje pozytywne lub negatywne stanowisko w sprawie kognitywnego charakteru, a zwłaszcza prawdziwości (Kleszcz wolałby powiedzieć: „uzasadnienia”) wierzeń czy doświadczeń religijnych. Na drugie pytanie, inaczej niż Kleszcz, odpowiadam negatywnie: ujawnienie przez filozofa własnego stosunku do religii nie niweczy ideału obiektywności, natomiast promuje uczciwość wobec czytelników i eliminuje pewien rodzaj teoretycznej hipokryzji spotykany u zwolenników filozofii uprawianej w sposób rzekomo neutralny względem własnych przekonań. Moja odpowiedź na trzecie pytanie jest także negatywna. Potrzebna jest nam dzisiaj mniej zachowawcza, odważniejsza w swoich roszczeniach filozofia religii niż ta proponowana przez Ryszarda Kleszcza — taka mianowicie, która naśladuje sposób uprawiania filozofii przez dawnych mistrzów, np. przez św. Tomasza z Akwinu, polegający na poszukiwaniu filozoficznych podstaw dla chrześcijaństwa, a nie taka, która uznaje wyniki ich ustaleń, np. w kwestii natury Boga, za zasadniczo ostateczne, a korygowalne jedynie w drobnych szczegółach.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42453173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Leo Strauss is well known for his thesis that there is an irreconcilable conflict between philosophy and “revelation,” i.e. monotheistic revealed religion, which cannot be harmonized. The philosopher qua philosopher cannot be a believer, while the believer qua believer cannot be a philosopher. However, it is less widely recognized that Strauss’ thought about religion as the fundamental alternative to philosophy follows two divergent trajectories. The first emphasizes the unique importance of revealed religion, while the other emphasizes the conflict between philosophy and what he calls “religion in general.” Sometimes, Strauss suggests that revelation poses a unique “challenge” to philosophy, such that the philosopher must refute the mere possibility of revelation in order to justify the legitimacy of philosophy itself. Sometimes, however, he suggests rather that revelation is a religion like any other, not essentially different from e.g. ancient polytheism, which would seem therefore to pose no unique “challenge.” I argue that Strauss ultimately fails to reconcile these two strands of this thought and that this failure is related both to tensions internal to his positive conception of philosophy itself as a middle path between dogmatism and skepticism and to the fact that he begs the question by assuming, rather than proving, that it follows necessarily from “the very idea of revelation” that it cannot be harmonized with philosophy.
{"title":"Leo Strauss on Religion as the Fundamental Alternative to Philosophy","authors":"W. Wood","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.15","url":null,"abstract":"Leo Strauss is well known for his thesis that there is an irreconcilable conflict between philosophy and “revelation,” i.e. monotheistic revealed religion, which cannot be harmonized. The philosopher qua philosopher cannot be a believer, while the believer qua believer cannot be a philosopher. However, it is less widely recognized that Strauss’ thought about religion as the fundamental alternative to philosophy follows two divergent trajectories. The first emphasizes the unique importance of revealed religion, while the other emphasizes the conflict between philosophy and what he calls “religion in general.” Sometimes, Strauss suggests that revelation poses a unique “challenge” to philosophy, such that the philosopher must refute the mere possibility of revelation in order to justify the legitimacy of philosophy itself. Sometimes, however, he suggests rather that revelation is a religion like any other, not essentially different from e.g. ancient polytheism, which would seem therefore to pose no unique “challenge.” I argue that Strauss ultimately fails to reconcile these two strands of this thought and that this failure is related both to tensions internal to his positive conception of philosophy itself as a middle path between dogmatism and skepticism and to the fact that he begs the question by assuming, rather than proving, that it follows necessarily from “the very idea of revelation” that it cannot be harmonized with philosophy.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44722764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the article I refer to the philosophy of William Hasker and his proposal to reconcile respect for the basic dogmas of Christianity with the contemporary standards of knowledge and the needs of people today. In the first part I analyse Hasker’s view on the idea of Christian philosophy. Since he assumes the truthfulness of the main doctrines of Christianity, he is not opposed to being referred to as a Christian philosopher, but neither is he enthusiastic about this name. This attitude is the result of his conviction that the state of absolute neutrality is not possible in philosophy and that regardless of the views accepted as true by a given thinker the requirement for good philosophy is fairness and evaluating all perspectives and beliefs for their internal coherence and their correspondence with the evidence. Therefore, Hasker first tries very carefully to reconstruct positions different from his own and to track down various difficulties in them, especially contradictions. In my opinion, however, the objection of self-contradiction is ineffective when applied to philosophical positions which, as a rule, use vague concepts. The same applies to the claim that these positions are contradictory to evidence, because one of such vague notions is also the notion of evidence. That is why philosophical claims have the extraordinary ability to persist in life or unexpectedly revive after being considered definitively dead. It does not follow from this that one cannot convincingly justify one’s position using less formal criteria. In the second part I focus on the rhetorical device used by Hasker to make his concept of God more attractive. He suggests that we should shape our concept of God based on our idea of a great man, i.e. one who educates children to live independently and is able to effectively and fairly manage large groups of people. Leaving aside the accusation of anthropomorphism, the question arises about the epistemic value of this image, which is not universal, changes over time and depends on the conditions in which people live. The content of this image proposed by Hasker isn’t also consistent with the idea of the God of Christian orthodoxy, which is dominated by traditional rather than open theism. This is where the problem of linking creative thinking and respect for Christian identity arises. Regardless of the opinion that open theism has among traditional theists, Hasker supports the concept of a strong Christian identity determined by a universally recognized creed. I propose to treat this identity a little more flexibly.
{"title":"Creative Thinking about God and Respect for Christian Identity","authors":"Piotr Gutowski","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.1","url":null,"abstract":"In the article I refer to the philosophy of William Hasker and his proposal to reconcile respect for the basic dogmas of Christianity with the contemporary standards of knowledge and the needs of people today. \u0000In the first part I analyse Hasker’s view on the idea of Christian philosophy. Since he assumes the truthfulness of the main doctrines of Christianity, he is not opposed to being referred to as a Christian philosopher, but neither is he enthusiastic about this name. This attitude is the result of his conviction that the state of absolute neutrality is not possible in philosophy and that regardless of the views accepted as true by a given thinker the requirement for good philosophy is fairness and evaluating all perspectives and beliefs for their internal coherence and their correspondence with the evidence. Therefore, Hasker first tries very carefully to reconstruct positions different from his own and to track down various difficulties in them, especially contradictions. In my opinion, however, the objection of self-contradiction is ineffective when applied to philosophical positions which, as a rule, use vague concepts. The same applies to the claim that these positions are contradictory to evidence, because one of such vague notions is also the notion of evidence. That is why philosophical claims have the extraordinary ability to persist in life or unexpectedly revive after being considered definitively dead. It does not follow from this that one cannot convincingly justify one’s position using less formal criteria. \u0000In the second part I focus on the rhetorical device used by Hasker to make his concept of God more attractive. He suggests that we should shape our concept of God based on our idea of a great man, i.e. one who educates children to live independently and is able to effectively and fairly manage large groups of people. Leaving aside the accusation of anthropomorphism, the question arises about the epistemic value of this image, which is not universal, changes over time and depends on the conditions in which people live. The content of this image proposed by Hasker isn’t also consistent with the idea of the God of Christian orthodoxy, which is dominated by traditional rather than open theism. This is where the problem of linking creative thinking and respect for Christian identity arises. Regardless of the opinion that open theism has among traditional theists, Hasker supports the concept of a strong Christian identity determined by a universally recognized creed. I propose to treat this identity a little more flexibly.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47846164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the contemporary version of the discussion around the problem of God’s hiddenness, which was initiated by the argument presented by John Schellenberg, the problem is posed in a way that differs significantly from its traditional presentation. However, there is no shortage of references to thinkers of the past who have grappled with the problem of divine hiddenness. Among these, there are occasional references to authors belonging to the medieval period: Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. However, none of the authors involved in the contemporary dispute refers to the thought of Bonaventure. In my paper, I intend to present and discuss the themes related to divine hiddenness that can be found in the theological works of Bonaventure. I will show their place and importance in the theological system of the Master of Bagnoregio. I will also indicate possible ways in which these themes can be used in contemporary philosophical discussion.
{"title":"“Revelatio Absconditorum”: On the Possible Contribution of Saint Bonaventure to the Contemporary Philosophical Discussion on Divine Hiddenness","authors":"M. Hołda","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.11","url":null,"abstract":"In the contemporary version of the discussion around the problem of God’s hiddenness, which was initiated by the argument presented by John Schellenberg, the problem is posed in a way that differs significantly from its traditional presentation. However, there is no shortage of references to thinkers of the past who have grappled with the problem of divine hiddenness. Among these, there are occasional references to authors belonging to the medieval period: Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. However, none of the authors involved in the contemporary dispute refers to the thought of Bonaventure. In my paper, I intend to present and discuss the themes related to divine hiddenness that can be found in the theological works of Bonaventure. I will show their place and importance in the theological system of the Master of Bagnoregio. I will also indicate possible ways in which these themes can be used in contemporary philosophical discussion.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42573006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper is devoted to an analysis of the concept of conversion in relation to the various concepts of faith distinguished by Robert Audi. The first part presents William James’ analysis of the concept of conversion, the biblical roots of the concept of conversion as epistrephō and metanoeō and analyses of conversion in the social sciences. The second part of the paper analyses the various notions of faith proposed in the works of Robert Audi. Finally, in the third part, I analyse how conversion can be understood in relation to the main of the concepts of faith identified by Audi; I also relate the concept of faith to the concept of scientific revolution characterised in Thomas Kuhn’s theory of the development of science.
{"title":"The Concept of Conversion in the Light of Some Concepts of Faith","authors":"M. Lechniak","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.12","url":null,"abstract":"The paper is devoted to an analysis of the concept of conversion in relation to the various concepts of faith distinguished by Robert Audi. The first part presents William James’ analysis of the concept of conversion, the biblical roots of the concept of conversion as epistrephō and metanoeō and analyses of conversion in the social sciences. The second part of the paper analyses the various notions of faith proposed in the works of Robert Audi. Finally, in the third part, I analyse how conversion can be understood in relation to the main of the concepts of faith identified by Audi; I also relate the concept of faith to the concept of scientific revolution characterised in Thomas Kuhn’s theory of the development of science.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41471780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present paper considers the possible sense of “nonsensical” caring—caring (1) which for various reasons apparently cannot help the cared-for, and (2) in which the carer, though convinced that it will not be effective, whole-heartedly engages. The project is inspired by the fiction of Ali Smith, which offers varied, vivid and memorable examples of such caring: worried that her dead sister misses life experience, Clare in Hotel World makes sure her sensations are doubly intense and rich though she knows her sister, being dead, will not benefit from them; in Summer Hannah and Daniel write to each other tender letters which they immediately burn for safety’s sake so that the addressee has not even the slightest chance of ever reading them; in “Virtual” a bed-ridden girl diligently takes care of her virtual pet, well aware that it is not alive, let alone sentient. Smith’s examples of “nonsensical” caring are strangely compelling, yet in real life such caring—predictably ineffective (as regards helping the other) and costly—is rare. Why? Under what metaphysical assumptions, if any, could “nonsensical” caring make sense? The paper considers these questions, taking Søren Kierkegaard’s extensive discussion of agape love in Works of Love (1847) as its primary point of reference.
{"title":"“Nonsensical” Caring in Ali Smith’s Fiction and Its Kierkegaardian Defence","authors":"J. Teske","doi":"10.18290/rf237102.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.14","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper considers the possible sense of “nonsensical” caring—caring (1) which for various reasons apparently cannot help the cared-for, and (2) in which the carer, though convinced that it will not be effective, whole-heartedly engages. The project is inspired by the fiction of Ali Smith, which offers varied, vivid and memorable examples of such caring: worried that her dead sister misses life experience, Clare in Hotel World makes sure her sensations are doubly intense and rich though she knows her sister, being dead, will not benefit from them; in Summer Hannah and Daniel write to each other tender letters which they immediately burn for safety’s sake so that the addressee has not even the slightest chance of ever reading them; in “Virtual” a bed-ridden girl diligently takes care of her virtual pet, well aware that it is not alive, let alone sentient. Smith’s examples of “nonsensical” caring are strangely compelling, yet in real life such caring—predictably ineffective (as regards helping the other) and costly—is rare. Why? Under what metaphysical assumptions, if any, could “nonsensical” caring make sense? The paper considers these questions, taking Søren Kierkegaard’s extensive discussion of agape love in Works of Love (1847) as its primary point of reference.","PeriodicalId":35732,"journal":{"name":"Roczniki Filozoficzne","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48142308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：